or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Your Recommended Utah Resorts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Your Recommended Utah Resorts

post #1 of 38
Thread Starter 
I'm looking for your ski resort recommendations for around Salt Lake City.

We booked a 5 ski day trip to Salt lake City and are planning on 2 days at Snowbird, and one day at Alta. But we can't make up our minds on where to ski the other 2 days. We're leaning toward SnowBasin and Deer Valley. But Park City and the Canyons keep coming up in our conversations. Four of us are going. We skied Snowbird and Alta last year. We will be staying at a lodge at Snowbird. Our group will ski on piste only, powder included.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
post #2 of 38
Deer Valley has some  good bumps but less vertical.  I much preferred the Canyons.  Didn't care for PC. 
post #3 of 38
One of my personal favorites is Solitude. It's somewhat smaller than the others, but there are zero liftlines and some really good skiing. They have great grooming on the frontside along with killer powder in Honeycomb Canyon. I have heard good things about the Canyons and Snowbasin, though.
post #4 of 38
If at all possible I would just play it by ear and see what the weather is like when you're here.  If there hasn't been any snow for a while, I would stay away from any of the Park City resorts.  Even if there has, I would tell you to go to Solitude and Snowbasin for your other two days.
post #5 of 38
If I was staying at the Lodge, I would just stay at Alta/Bird.   Just take the shuttle from the airport and save the rental car for when you stay in the city.  
post #6 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHREDHEAD View Post

If I was staying at the Lodge, I would just stay at Alta/Bird.   Just take the shuttle from the airport and save the rental car for when you stay in the city.  

Without a car, there would still be the option to take the bus to Solitude or Brighton.  Of course, I don't know that I'd bother if I was staying slopeside. 
post #7 of 38
Good thing no one has ever asked this same question before.  Or today.  Or like 3 posts below this one. 
post #8 of 38
on piste only including powder?

doesnt make sense at all...
post #9 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

on piste only including powder?

doesnt make sense at all...
 

That's ok - planning out where you're going to ski months in advance doesn't make any sense either.

LT - I'd calm down and wait until you get there. Some days you are unable to get to (or out of) certain areas, so I'd do like Jim Morrison said and take it as it comes.
post #10 of 38
Our group will ski on piste only, powder included.
Now it makes cents.
I thought you'd be skiing by now Jer.
post #11 of 38
Thread Starter 



piste

One entry found.
Define Any Word With The Click Of A Button With Google. Search On.

Main Entry: piste
Pronunciation: \ˈpēst\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Middle French, from Old Italian pista, from pistare to trample down, pound — more at piston
Date: circa 1741

: trail; especially : a downhill ski trail


I don't know what piste means to you, whoever you are, but I use the above definition.

I meant we will ski on marked downhill ski trails with or without deep powder, but not off trail or back country which many people do in Utah. Alot of Easterners can ski packed ski trails in Utah but when on trails with deep powder that one frequently finds in Utah they have a difficult time or can't ski at all. I know a girl who was a ski instructor in the east but when she went out west she couldn't ski the powder and sat in the lodge all day. I know a guy who learned to ski starting at age 8 at Whiteface in Ny. When he moved to Utah and got a job at Snowbird so he could ski free, it took him 2 weeks to learn powder skiing. He thought that if you could ski ice you could ski anything. He was wrong.
post #12 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTCold View Post



piste

One entry found.
Define Any Word With The Click Of A Button With Google. Search On.

Main Entry: piste
Pronunciation: \ˈpēst\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Middle French, from Old Italian pista, from pistare to trample down, pound — more at piston
Date: circa 1741

: trail; especially : a downhill ski trail


I don't know what piste means to you, whoever you are, but I use the above definition.

I meant we will ski on marked downhill ski trails with or without deep powder, but not off trail or back country which many people do in Utah. Alot of Easterners can ski packed ski trails in Utah but when on trails with deep powder that one frequently finds in Utah they have a difficult time or can't ski at all. I know a girl who was a ski instructor in the east but when she went out west she couldn't ski the powder and sat in the lodge all day. I know a guy who learned to ski starting at age 8 at Whiteface in Ny. When he moved to Utah and got a job at Snowbird so he could ski free, it took him 2 weeks to learn powder skiing. He thought that if you could ski ice you could ski anything. He was wrong.

alot of easterns? last time I check the east gets a ton of snow, well at least northern Vermont.

Honestly word of advice avoid snowbird or alta on a powder day. They dont groom in the morning and since you cant ski it that will be no fun. but remember......

"its not that you cant ski the powder, its that you cant ski and the powder proves it"
post #13 of 38
With today's massive boards most skiiers don't really ski powder they just float on top of it. They want you to believe they've done something worth talking about.
post #14 of 38

This guy, who might be a very fine skier for all we know, simply said his group plans to ski on marked trails, including marked trails that may contain powder after a storm. Just parsing, not taking sides, not that I think there are sides to be taken.

post #15 of 38
Back in the day. When you could wheel 210's around in 2 feet of wet snow. Don't think my back would like that now.
post #16 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjb View Post

With today's massive boards most skiiers don't really ski powder they just float on top of it. They want you to believe they've done something worth talking about.

I hate to do this but I wont stop till I stop seeing uttererly wrong thing posted on the web.

First you CANT float on top. Impossiable in utah, the only time you float on top is when the snow is windblown or to wet. Then if you want to flounder in it, your pretty dumb.

Dookey on spatulas floating on top eh!


Brooklyn on Praxis againin floating on top


me on thugs

even if you could float on top. which you cant. how would that not be worth talking about? My guess if you never have arced GS turn on soft windblown at all because thats one area where fat skis will 'float on top" but then again sinking down is just work and dangerous is there is a crust.



another thing that fat skis will help you float on top of is water. water is much more dense than snow and with enough ski you can float 2 people.



simply put your post is flat out wrong, and I would love to see one picture of someone 'floating" on top and I would love to here how even if they could how 'its not worth talking about". Heck if you could float on top that would be worth talking about.
post #17 of 38
"I wont stop till I stop seeing uttererly wrong thing posted on the web"

Noble, but a Quixotic quest, I fear.

 

Still, I think Bush may be right. You may float higher in the snowpack, or float more easily to the surface in the unweighted phase of the turn with fat skis, but I've never looked down and seen "ski" when in deep powder, no matter how wide the board.

Course, I really shouldn't be looking down, but that's another issue.

post #18 of 38

Obviously someone has never skied the Cascades when it's 30 degrees in mixprecip.

post #19 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post




I hate to do this but I wont stop till I stop seeing uttererly wrong thing posted on the web.

Lost cause. Just quit while you're ahead.
post #20 of 38
Then what benefit do big boards in powder provide?
post #21 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjb View Post

Then what benefit do big boards in powder provide?

more turning options, and they are easier to ski. You can go faster or slower than skinnier skis and you can turn tighter when you need to, or open it up when you want to. This is due to more float, but more float comes from flex, size and shape. more float does not bring you to the top. They can not bring you to the top though in Utah, it is impossiable.
post #22 of 38
LT, welcome to the raging testosterone of the Epic ski forums.

Unless you have a car, going to other resorts will be problematic. You can easilly do Solitude or Brighton via the UTA ski shuttles as long as the canyons are open. For only 2 days, I'd recomend another day at Alta/'Bird and doing a ski shuttle day to Solitude. Check the cost difference between renting a car and and roundtrip shuttle cost for 4 from the airport, you will need a car if you want to beyond LCC and BCC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTCold View Post

I'm looking for your ski resort recommendations for around Salt Lake City.

We booked a 5 ski day trip to Salt lake City and are planning on 2 days at Snowbird, and one day at Alta. But we can't make up our minds on where to ski the other 2 days. We're leaning toward SnowBasin and Deer Valley. But Park City and the Canyons keep coming up in our conversations. Four of us are going. We skied Snowbird and Alta last year. We will be staying at a lodge at Snowbird. Our group will ski on piste only, powder included.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
post #23 of 38
Yes, they are easier to ski because they provide better float. Utah powder is among the lightest anywhere. I never felt the need for huge boards in champaign powder.
post #24 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjb View Post



Yes, they are easier to ski because they provide better float. Utah powder is among the lightest anywhere. I never felt the need for huge boards in champaign powder.

The reason for fat skis >100mm waist and rockered fun shapes isn't that you need more float, its that you want to ski the pow in a different way and open up new lines, new turn shapes, experience less fatigue in deep stuff, and to have hoot in variable snow conditions, etc...


The only time I have ever floated in deep snow on my Praxis (136 under foot) has been on a really warm storm that came through last january and dumped about 18" of grauple and then covered it with 6" of blower. That was the most fun I have had on skis.

I have had days where the snow as 3' deep and I was on soft flexing 108 width skis and I was still hitting stuff under the snow. The snow was too light and unsubstantial to support me. I wanted to be on something even wider that day.
post #25 of 38
 18" grauple with 6" blower sounds really unstable.  Fun if it sticks to the mountain though.
post #26 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

I hate to do this but I wont stop till I stop seeing uttererly wrong thing posted on the web.

post #27 of 38
Yes, fat skis have evolved to provide increased turn shape capability. I find the benefits more significant in non-powder conditions, making them somewhat more versatile. After all, the powder doesn't usually last that long. So that's a good thing. However, the fat attribute is the driving factor for easier powder skiing. Without the fat attribute all the other stuff won't be much help.

If you think today's skiers aren't substantially higher in the snow then you probably didn't ski powder in the 70's.


-
post #28 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjb View Post

After all, the powder doesn't usually last that long.

 

Where? At Killington? 'Cause I've skied freash stuff all day at every LCC/BCC resort on many occasions.

Well - I didn't really ski it like a real man - I just "floated on top".
post #29 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post


Well - I didn't really ski it like a real man

 



Nobody here was going to mistake you for a real man.


-
post #30 of 38
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjb View Post



Yes, fat skis have evolved to provide increased turn shape capability. I find the benefits more significant in non-powder conditions, making them somewhat more versatile. After all, the powder doesn't usually last that long. So that's a good thing. However, the fat attribute is the driving factor for easier powder skiing. Without the fat attribute all the other stuff won't be much help.


-


You are right cjb. Float is the key factor, everything else is secondary. Some of the knuckleheads responding otherwise most likely flunked physics.



/// 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Your Recommended Utah Resorts